V. Soni vs U.T. Administration And Another on 13 October, 2009

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                  Civil Writ Petition No.14995 of 2009
                   Date of decision: 13th October, 2009


V. Soni
                                                                 ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
U.T. Administration and another
                                                             ... Respondents


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

Present:    Mr. Arun Palli, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Anupam Gupta, Sr. Standing Counsel, U.T. Chandigarh
            with Mr. Amar Vivek, Advocate
            for the respondents.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

On October 9, 2009, following order was passed:

“Counsel for the respondents states that the U.T.
Administration is going to scrap the Bed & Breakfast Scheme
which is allowed to operate from residential houses. He further
states that requisite orders will be passed by Tuesday.

On request, adjourned to 13.10.2009.
In case, no order is passed in that regard, as mentioned
above, the operation of the impugned order shall be deemed to
have been stayed from Tuesday onwards. To the contrary, if
any such order is passed, then the petitioner will be at liberty to
avail remedy, against that order, as per law.

Copy of the order be given to counsel for the
respondents under signatures of the Reader of this Court, for
necessary compliance.”

Today, Mr. Anupam Gupta has placed on record the order

passed by the Home Secretary-cum-Secretary Tourism, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No.14995 of 2009 2

Administration on 12th October, 2009, whereby the Bed & Breakfast

Scheme has been scrapped.

Liberty has already been granted to the petitioner to assail

this order in order dated October 9, 2009.

In view of this, present writ petition is disposed of, with the

liberty already granted to the petitioner.

Mr. Arun Palli appearing for the petitioner further states that

this order should not be construed to interpret that petitioner will not be

able to raise any other argument.

Petitioner may raise any argument, which is available to him,

if he proposes to file a petition assailing the Scheme and the impugned

order.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
October 13, 2009
rps